Former Springbok wing Stefan Terblanche has been a judicial officer for rugby disciplinary panels for nearly a decade and he says he has never been involved in a case in which video evidence was not used, supporting fears the United Rugby Championship (URC) have introduced a major precedent with their handling of the Jan-Hendrik Wessels incident.
Bulls prop Wessels was hauled before a disciplinary hearing after their match against Connacht in Galway on October 17.
Connacht loose forward Josh Murphy was red-carded for striking Wessels on the head, but the match officials could find no evidence to back up the Irishman’s allegation it was retaliation for genital grabbing, even though the video was studied from several angles. But Irish citing commissioner Peter Ferguson approached Murphy after the game and then laid a disciplinary complaint against Wessels based on what the Connacht player told him.
An all-Welsh URC disciplinary panel chaired by Declan Goodwin, found Wessels guilty and banned him for nine weeks, despite admitting they had no video evidence to confirm Murphy’s allegation. They based their decision on Ferguson’s opinion and Murphy’s oral evidence being longer, more detailed and therefore somehow more believable. Murphy, meanwhile, who was clearly seen striking Wessels twice on the head, had his red card rescinded.
The Bulls appealed the verdict and last week requested a fresh hearing, which a different judicial panel rejected, but did reduce his ban by one week.
Terblanche told TimesLive exclusively at the Gary and Vivienne Player Invitational at Sun City he had never experienced a case where video evidence was not used to decide the verdict.
“I’ve been involved in over 200 cases and I’ve certainly never been involved in one where there was no video evidence of clear foul play, whether reckless or intentional. Some of them are straightforward - the player generally says they are sorry they didn’t mean to tackle so high or they lost it on the field.
“These are often split-second things and we need to remember when watching the videos that things don’t happen in slow-mo. There’s a process there to follow. I’ve never had to be in a trial where no video evidence is used, [and] just the opposition’s word is taken as the truth.
“It’s a bizarre case and I did ask for the paperwork so I could go over it. To go purely on the submission of the alleged victim and the other player gets banned for eight weeks, it’s tough to work out. And now that the appeal has been heard, the URC say the case is closed,” Terblanche said.
Just who is responsible for overseeing these dysfunctional disciplinary panels is unclear. The URC claim the panels are fully independent and they have no jurisdiction over them, saying World Rugby is responsible for them.
World Rugby told the Rapport newspaper last weekend they do not comment on disciplinary processes involving other organisations.
Wessels’ desire to clear his name and to make up the estimated R1.5m he will lose by not being part of the Springboks’ end-of-year tour are why the Bulls are now considering taking the matter to an Irish court.
What is highly problematic about this case is Ferguson claimed to have been 20 metres from the incident when he saw a clear genital grab, which is impossible because that would have placed him on the field of play. With one of the stands at Galway closed to the public, the citing commissioner would have been 50m away from the ruck where Murphy punched Wessels.
Murphy has also received two other red cards in recent years, for a dangerous tackle and reckless eye contact. And yet his word was taken and the Bulls were not allowed to cross-examine either he or Ferguson.
